Lovepop v. Paper Love LLC: Pop-Up Card Patent Dispute Ends in Settlement
Lovepop, Inc. filed a four-patent infringement action against Paper Love LLC in the Eastern District of New York in April 2024, asserting rights over its signature pop-up greeting card technology and designs. The parties resolved the dispute through a settlement agreement, stipulating to dismissal with prejudice after 430 days — with each side bearing its own costs.
A four-patent assertion by Lovepop ends in settlement after 14 months
In April 2024, Lovepop, Inc. — a premium pop-up greeting card company — filed an infringement action in the Eastern District of New York against Paper Love LLC, asserting four patents: US11967254B2, USD0867448S, US11705021B2, and US9601033B2. The asserted IP spans both utility patents covering pop-up card engineering and a design patent covering ornamental card aesthetics, collectively protecting the core of the LOVEPOP brand’s commercial identity.
The case closed on July 4, 2025 — 430 days after filing — via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both parties, represented by counsel from Greenberg Traurig/Polsinelli (Lovepop) and Bochner PLLC (Paper Love), agreed that each side would bear its own fees and expenses. The court was asked to retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the undisclosed settlement agreement, a provision that is legally significant and suggests meaningful settlement terms.
A 430-day timeline before resolution is consistent with cases that progress through initial pleadings and early discovery before settling — suggesting substantive negotiation rather than an early capitulation. The private nature of the settlement means the specific commercial terms, including any licensing arrangements, product restrictions, or financial consideration, remain unknown from the public record. What is clear is that Lovepop’s patents survived the litigation intact.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 430 days
430 days — above average for a settled district court IP case
Settled and dismissed with prejudice: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice signals a binding settlement
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ consent and permanently bars Lovepop from re-filing the same claims against Paper Love. The court’s retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement is a standard enforcement mechanism — suggesting the parties wanted judicial oversight of any future compliance disputes.
Permanent bar on re-filingLovepop secures a settlement — patents remain intact and enforceable
Dismissal with prejudice in the context of a negotiated settlement typically signals that Lovepop extracted commercially meaningful concessions — whether licensing terms, design changes, or a market exit by Paper Love. Critically, none of Lovepop’s four asserted patents were invalidated, leaving the IP portfolio fully intact and available for future enforcement against other parties.
Portfolio remains enforceablePaper Love avoids a merits ruling but accepts binding settlement obligations
Paper Love LLC avoided a court judgment on infringement or validity, which could have been damaging precedent. However, the with-prejudice dismissal and court-retained jurisdiction indicate Paper Love accepted binding obligations under a private settlement agreement. The nature and scope of those obligations — including any product modifications or royalty terms — are not public record.
Private obligations undisclosedLovepop’s IP portfolio signals a robust enforcement posture in pop-up card design
With four patents spanning structural innovation (utility patents) and ornamental design (the USD design patent), Lovepop has demonstrated willingness to litigate and the resources to see disputes through to settlement. Competitors in the premium greeting card and paper engineering space should treat the LOVEPOP Marks and associated patents as active enforcement risks — not theoretical ones.
High enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lovepop, Inc. | Company | Premium pop-up greeting card company — holder of US11967254B2 and 3 design/utility patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Paper Love LLC | Company | Paper Love LLC — greeting card company alleged to have infringed Lovepop’s pop-up card IPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clement Asante | Attorney | Counsel for Lovepop, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Charles Cleary | Attorney | Counsel for Lovepop, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Patrick Dulin | Attorney | Counsel for Lovepop, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greenberg Traurig LLP | Law Firm | Representing Lovepop, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Polsinelli PC | Law Firm | Representing Lovepop, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Avery Horovitz | Attorney | Counsel for Paper Love LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erik J. Dykema | Attorney | Counsel for Paper Love LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John A Rossler | Attorney | Counsel for Paper Love LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Serge Krimnus | Attorney | Counsel for Paper Love LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bochner PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Paper Love LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation references both Paper Love LLC and JMC Brands Inc. as defendants, suggesting the actual defendant base was broader than the primary docket listing indicates. The with-prejudice standard is significant: it forecloses Lovepop from reasserting these specific claims against these defendants. The court’s retained jurisdiction clause is a deliberate drafting choice, typically inserted when settlement terms are complex or performance-dependent — consistent with an agreement involving ongoing obligations rather than a simple one-time payment.
US11967254B2 — Pop-up greeting card structural engineering
The four asserted patents cover overlapping but distinct aspects of Lovepop’s pop-up card technology. US11967254B2 and US11705021B2 are utility patents protecting structural innovations in how pop-up card elements are engineered, folded, and assembled — filed via application numbers US17/479466 and US17/375470 respectively. US9601033B2 (application US14/971625) represents an earlier foundational utility patent in the portfolio, suggesting layered, generational IP protection. USD0867448S is a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a specific card, filed under application US29/642402.
The breadth of this portfolio — spanning early-generation utility protection, newer structural patents, and design rights — is consistent with a deliberate IP-stacking strategy to maximise enforcement leverage against competitors. For the premium greeting card sector, this case signals that functional paper-engineering techniques and distinctive visual card designs can be meaningfully protected and enforced. Companies developing paper pop-up products, kirigami-style cards, or similar sculptural paper goods should treat this patent family as a material clearance risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against Lovepop’s pop-up card patents?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing three-dimensional pop-up greeting cards — particularly those with kirigami, origami-inspired, or laser-cut paper engineering — should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent family. Lovepop’s willingness to file a four-patent infringement action and sustain it for over 14 months before settling demonstrates that enforcement is not theoretical. Retailers sourcing pop-up card products from third-party manufacturers should also assess supplier IP risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11967254B2, US11705021B2, and US9601033B2 against your product designs, identify prior art that constrains claim interpretation, and flag design-arounds. For the ornamental design patent USD0867448S, Eureka can surface visually similar prior designs that may affect enforceability — giving your team a defensible clearance baseline before product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11967254B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar pop-up card and paper engineering patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving pop-up greeting card structures, paper engineering, and design patents litigated in U.S. district courts.
What Lovepop v. Paper Love signals for greeting card and paper-art IP
A four-patent assertion ending in a private settlement with retained jurisdiction suggests Lovepop is protecting IP with serious commercial intent.
Multi-patent stacking amplifies settlement leverage in consumer product IP
Lovepop’s simultaneous assertion of three utility patents and one design patent — spanning engineering method, structure, and aesthetics — made it difficult for Paper Love to design around any single claim. This layered approach is a recognised litigation strategy that increases defendant settlement pressure without necessarily requiring a trial win.
Retained jurisdiction clauses signal performance-based settlement terms
When parties request that a court retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement, it typically indicates the deal involves ongoing obligations — product changes, royalty schedules, or market access restrictions — rather than a lump-sum payment. For competitors monitoring this space, this suggests the settlement was substantive, not token.
Lovepop v Paper — key questions answered
Lovepop asserted four patents: utility patents US11967254B2, US11705021B2, and US9601033B2, covering pop-up greeting card structural engineering, plus design patent USD0867448S covering the ornamental appearance of a specific card design. The case was filed in the Eastern District of New York in April 2024.
The case was resolved through a private settlement agreement and dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on July 4, 2025. Both parties agreed to bear their own fees and expenses. The court retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement for potential future enforcement disputes. The specific settlement terms are not public.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Lovepop from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Paper Love LLC and JMC Brands Inc. regarding the same four patents. However, Lovepop’s patents remain fully valid and enforceable against other third parties not covered by this stipulation.
Because the case settled and was dismissed without any court ruling on the merits of infringement or patent validity, none of the four asserted patents were invalidated or narrowed by judicial decision. A settlement-driven dismissal with prejudice does not adjudicate patent validity — it simply terminates the specific dispute between these parties.
Lovepop’s demonstrated willingness to assert four patents simultaneously and sustain litigation for 430 days suggests a well-resourced enforcement strategy. Companies producing pop-up cards, three-dimensional paper engineering products, or kirigami-style greeting cards should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against Lovepop’s utility and design patents before commercialising competing products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.